Marston v. Thaler
| Catherine L. Marston |
| Rick Thaler and Brad Livingston |
| 1:2010cv00304 |
| May 4, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Texas |
| Austin Office |
| Andrew W. Austin |
| Sam Sparks |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
18
ORDER ADOPTING 14 Report and Recommendations. It is ORDERED that Marston's 1 Writ of Habeas Corpus is Dismissed in Part, Denied in Part; Marston's Motions 12 and 17 are DISMISSED AS MOOT. Claims are DISMISSED with Prejudice. The issuance of a COA is DENIED. Signed by Judge Sam Sparks. (klw, )
|
|
Filing
14
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 12 Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Catherine L. Marston, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Catherine L. Marston, Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Catherine L. Marston, 11 Motion to Dismiss filed by Rick Thaler; recommending that respondent's Motion to dismiss be granted, petitioner's second request for in forma pauperis status and motion for habeas bond be denied, and petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus be denied in part and dismissed with prejudice in part as time-barred; further recommending that the Court not issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin. (mc2, )
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Texas Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
